Has anyone here actually looked at the "anti-Firefox" ad in question? It's literally a tile that says "Still using Firefox? Edge is here!". I'm not really sure what we expected here. This is about the same as a browser asking you to make it default when you open it. All big companies do weird anti competitive things. This isn't one of those things. I know I'll likely get downvoted for this opinion, but to many commenters here saying things like "this is why I don't believe in the new Microsoft or that Microsoft has changed", I'm not entirely sure how some meh ad telling you to switch your browser counteracts things like SQL Server on Linux or Azure supporting Linux VMs, or Microsoft's purchase of github, or .net core being cross platform, etc. I don't generally care to support a large company, nor am I an active developer or user in the microsoft stack, but the over reaction is a bit absurd.
Does anyone who uses Firefox realize for a long while they were primarily funded by having Google pay them to be the default search engine?
It's not an overreaction. It's literally a targeted ad showing up in your day to day work space. It's invasive. I switched to mac a long time ago, but I still have a Windows device because some things are just painful (or impossible) to use on a mac.
The difference between using an application that prompts "make this default?" and a specifically targeted ad showing up on your start menu is that the user used the application that threw the prompt...That might actually be helpful.
The fact is, if Microsoft wants me to switch to Edge, they need to tell me the benefits. A chart will do fine comparing it to other common options. I don't need a targeted ad that proves they know and keep track of what browser I'm actually using. That's literally ridiculous.
Apple does the same sort of thing these days, Music.app on my phone keeps showing me a full screen ad for Apple Music around a month, dismissed it about 5 times now.
It seems a bit absurd that this is still a reason to say 'fuck ubuntu' when they listened to user feedback and reversed that feature. I can't think of any other similar missteps in recent years.
> I can't think of any other similar missteps in recent years.
I stopped using Ubuntu a while ago due to a large number of individually minor "missteps", so I don't have any equally blatant/memorable (or particularly recent) examples, but there were enough of them to be a constant hazard of updating anything.
(For similarly large, there's systemd and wayland, but neither those are specific to Ubuntu.)
Also, someone (for analogy) dumping toxic waste into a drinking water supply, and then listening to feedback and ceasing to dump toxic waste into the water supply, still seems like a damn good reason to say "fuck those guys in particular" to me, and that's what shipping malware in a software update amounts to.
Still – it’s a misleading title (border-line click bait). Anti-Firefox ad implies that they say something negative about Firefox, which clearly isn't the case.
"Still using Firefox?" Seems to me implies that it's old and antiquated and only used by people who don't know any better. Of course the opposite is true.
To build on your point: Yes, and this is precisely how Microsoft intended. It’s a disingenuous question. The OS knows you’re still using Firefox, because that’s what prompted the ad to begin with.
sure, but those types of ads aren't really for people like you. they are for the vast majority of Windows users who aren't in control of their machine but are instead being controlled by it. many don't even realize they can get rid of those ads, or they give in and just start using Edge..
My observation has been is that most users who use Firefox aren't the kind to be controlled by their PC. Someone who can use Firefox (specially because of privacy concerns and have installed extensions) should easily be able to switch off this ad. If anything I found it bold and kinda funny of Microsoft to do that. I myself am a Brave user, btw.
Well maybe instead of articles complaining about ads we educate the users on how to turn ads off and how to install ad-blockers.
But that's not what this article is about, it's a Microsoft hit-piece. That's all journalism is nowadays, mercenaries for hire.
And final point, if the ad isn't for me or anyone else here for that matter, why are we seeing an article about it? And why did noone else here mention you can turn it off?
Microsoft is not the harbinger of ads and they never will be, Google was and is. If you want to war ads, take it up against Google, their browser, their OS, and their search engine.
Ironically MS put an adblocker in Chromium by default.
It's anticompetitive as fuck but people stopped caring about that it seems.
Also why it's against firefox and not let's say chrome.
Inb4 Google does this too on their products.
Yeah and it's less fucked but absolutely fucked just the same.
This is Microsoft using their desktop operating system market share to drive their web browser market share. That's pretty much what they got sued for before.
Given, their market position in desktop might be a different one now than back then. But it's still quite close to what antitrust laws were written against.
Also saying "oh all corps do stuff like that calm down" is a really bad defense IMO.
I am an occasional user of Maps, YouTube, Blogger and Translate. Never used Chrome, and all of these properties work just fine and have not tried to push Chrome.
I'm also using a stock Android and have never used Chrome on it. Play Store, Play Games, Find my Device, and the Google app work just fine and haven't tried to push Chrome either.
I guess I should prepend these observations with "Yet", as I'm not at all of the opinion that it'll never happen.
> all of these properties work just fine and have not tried to push Chrome.
Historically Google has relentlessly advertised Chrome to Firefox users on Youtube and their main search page ... probably the most valuable advertising space on the Internet. Maybe they've cut back, for some or all users.
Have you tried using Translate for a web page recently, instead of just a couple sentences of text? Some time ago, they removed that functionality, instead instructing users to use a browser with native translation capabilities to translate pages. It's a pretty blatant push to get people over onto Chrome.
It does on my S8, try any google website and you'll get notifications and I've even gotten emails every time I sign in on a device with a gmail ID but don't have the google apps on that device.
Don't most linux distros come with Firefox preinstalled? How is that not pushing the other way? OSX comes with Safari. Every time you visit youtube with another browser it nudges you to install Chrome. Why is Microsoft singled out here?
Linux distros preinstall Firefox just like Windows preinstalls Edge. A fact that I've never had a problem with, from an ethical or user-friendliness aspect.
For your comparison to be valid, a Linux distro would have to be showing antagonistic adverts when its mandatory telemetry gathering detects that you are not using Firefox, and doing so to increase their market share. They do not and distros are not Mozilla, so the comparison falls flat.
On the theory that every heavily-commented, front page item critcial of Microsoft produces the same defensive comments along the lines of "but everyone else is doing it", I decided I would search this thread for the phrase "singled out". I arrived here.
What is funny in this case is that Microsoft is going after Firefox users, specifically, so, similar to how an HN commenter would ask "Why is Microsoft being singled out?", we could actually ask, "Why is Mozilla being singled out?" Why not target the users of some other browser.
It should be obvious that this type of question is not aimed at producing a useful answer. I predict we will see this suggestion of "unfairness" again in the next heavily-commented, front page item that is critical of Microsoft. It has been remarkably consistent.
Many people did not appreciate Microsoft's acquisition of GitHub, and Azure wouldn't be very successful if it didn't support Linux (the predominant server operating system).
It is completely reasonable to be skeptical of Microsoft's actions here, as they have a history of anticompetitive behavior in the web browser market.
Most people, myself included, were skeptical when Microsoft bought GitHub and assumed it would change for the worse. In this case I'm happy to have been proven wrong and I've seen nothing but improvements to GitHub following it's acquisition. They pretty much immediately made private repos free if you have less than four contributors and have allowed GitHub to continue to deliver awesome features like GitHub actions for free to open source repos.
While that was an improvement from before, it pales in comparison to GitLab.com's free private repos with no contributor restrictions. Additionally, GitLab.com offers free continuous integration/delivery for both open source and proprietary repos. GitLab is also source-available.
GitHub is doing the bare minimum to compete while relying on network effects from its existing user base - better than nothing, but not enough to justify showering Microsoft with praise.
It's probably not just the ads, but the fact that they have complete, unlimited access to one's machine to install apps and copy/modify data as they see fit that makes them worse than the MS of the 90's. To me, it's incredible anyone who cares at all about security would even consider Windows at this point, let alone large companies with company secrets and other private information. MS is likely mining through any file or data on any machine it wants. This invasion of privacy in many ways eclipses FB and Google, which provide services that can be avoided. This data collection is unavoidable on Windows. We don't even know the extent of the data collection, let alone what they're doing with it and they are doing it something like 90% of the installed PC user base or whatever their market share is these days. That's an incredible surveillance machine, likely the largest in the world. It's amazing to me people who work in tech can defend such practices and claim they are not a big deal. A lot of people just don't care at all about security, judging by their use of Windows.
> This is about the same as a browser asking you to make it default when you open it.
No, it's one thing (OS) pushing another (browser). The equivalent would be opening chrome and it popping up a message, "Still using Windows? Click here to upgrade to ChromeOS!"
I think it's more like Google harassing you to install Chrome when using any Google property, or, even worse, getting it packaged into every installer under the sun, so if you forgot to uncheck the "install Google Chrome" box while installing a new version of Java, congratulations, you now have Google Chrome.
I'm not defending this behavior, but unfortunately the norm has been set.
I think what we were expecting was that the operating system shouldn't be making advertisements? Yes it's "just" a meh ad, but why are you ok with your OS advertising dumb bullshit to you? This isn't just an app, you can't just casually drop your operating system. It's inappropriate and it should be viewed as such.
When Microsoft does these things, it's not just a matter of "well go with someone else". There is no-one else, a lot of times. So we're trapped, and Microsoft says: by the way, now you have to deal with advertisements in your operation system. And we're going to do one that totally tweaks our nose at the antitrust issues of the 90s just because we can.
None of that is ok! It's not an overreaction to say, hey guys, knock it off.
"Targeted" for me would imply that Windows is checking first to see whether Firefox is installed, and only showing the suggestion if so.
If this is just a general suggestion that gets pushed out to all Windows computers, then it's not so much targeted as merely questionable use of platform.
I would be very surprised if it was just pushed out irrespective of telemetry. Since Windows 10 is a mass-market operating system, I'd be surprised if 1% of their users had ever heard of Firefox.
Since Firefox usage share on Windows is >1%, I'd be pretty surprised if most of those users are inadvertently using Firefox without every having heard of it.
When I actually saw the ad, I realized it was not actually that inflammatory AND I had been click-baited onto a page to look at an ad surrounded by inane copy and wait for it...yet more ads.
Because of what I do, I am on a lot of Windows 10 machines for the first time. I use chocolaty to push out all the apps needed for systems at work, or my VMs at home.
When you switch browsers for the first time, Win10 will ask like a whiny little bitch, "Are you sure you want to not use Edge? It's really nice."
An anti-Firefox ad on Win10 would not surprise me.
So I guess you were talking about my post? Since I'm one of the "this is why I don't believe in the new Microsoft or that Microsoft has changed" people you mention :-).
First of all, this isn't just about this ad. As I said in my comment, it's "this -- and every other screw-up in the same vein". Like the other Start Menu ads, like the dark patterns in privacy-related config settings. But okay, let's talk about this one specifically.
The "old Microsoft" (specifically, to put it in context: the one with the Halloween Documents [0]) that I don't trust (I want to emphasize this part for reasons that I'll explain in a minute) is a company that:
1. Specifically used its dominating position in the operating systems industry to push its browser and eliminate competition in that space
2. Engaged in competition partly by spreading FUD about other products (note that this is not a post-hoc exaggeration: the internal memos specifically call FUD by this name, and refer to it as an entrenched, well-known internal technique)
3. Was deliberately dismissive of competing open source software in its public statements, even though it sometimes uses it internally
4. Set out a strategy to compete against open source (note though -- I think the documents predate the term "open source"?) that went beyond merely spreading FUD, and was based on embracing, then extending existing protocols in incompatible ways.
This "meh ad" is just the latest in Microsoft's constant, and extremely irritating push for Edge (e.g. see the system's behaviour when you try to change the default browser). It's the same stuff we've seen back in 1998 -- not as aggressive, seeing how Microsoft nearly got broken up when it tried something that aggressive, but it's in the same vein. And looks very much like #1 above.
It's also not happening just in the browser space. For instance, until recently, Windows wouldn't shut up about the damn OneDrive thing, either.
Things are different in the cloud and server space -- where SQL Server, Azure and .NET core happen -- because Microsoft isn't even close to being in a dominating position. Of course Microsoft can't elude competition there. They could ban Linux from Azure if they wanted to, but more than half of their marketshare would evaporate with it, too.
But I don't see any reason to think that this is part of some internal reform of some sort -- it's just the corner Microsoft painted themselves in. Of course they have to play the "Microsoft loves Linux" PR game, too: a whole generation of open source developers grew in a climate of mistrust about Microsoft, and it just so happens that the software written by this generation of open source developers powers much of the cloud space, of which Microsoft would reaaally want a slice. A long time ago, Microsoft also sold software for the Macintosh. Then it stopped. Then it started selling OS X software again. They aren't dumb, and they certainly don't lack good engineers -- Microsoft can compete on technical merit when it needs to.
Just like you, I don't generally care to support a large company, and while I do earn about half my yearly income writing or support Linux software, I don't really have a stake in it (honestly, I'd much rather write or support QNX software but that ship has sailed...). I'm not... OK, I'm no longer a Linux fanboy, which I definitely was twenty years ago but we all did a lot of stupid things when we were young. This isn't about "loving" or "hating" Microsoft, it's about whether or not I want to trust them with my stuff -- and stuff like this makes me not trust them :).
Edit: man, the last time I wrote so much about Microsoft I was fifteen, I think...
Even later edit: also -- as far as Windows 10 is concerned, save for the ads and data collection policy, I actually like it very much. I use it on one of my machines and I'm very happy with it -- so happy, in fact, that the moment this ads nonsense stops, I'll seriously think about switching to it :).
But your argument is a logical fallacy. The fact that people who disagree with me are not automatically “paid shill” doesn’t imply that “paid shills” aren’t there.
Of course I cannot prove it, but the signs are there. How else do you explain the sudden change of heart of the HN community overnight? Who usually have very strong opinions on this topic.
To set the record straight, I have not ever nor do I currently work for microsoft. If you have IP tracking skills you can probably figure out where I work from these posts. As a matter of a fact, I don't like a lot of things about msft, this just isn't one of them. I dislike that msft is getting a disproportionate amount of hate about this stuff and yet Google and Apple don't seem to get the same level of flack. People seem to get more upset at them related to privacy. I wanted to offer a different perspective that acknowledges that this is the state of things across the board, and this one thing is less harmful than it's being made out to be. Microsoft embraced open source when it was friendly to their business and shunned it when it was not. They may very well shun it again, but with the proliferation of cloud providers and the dominance of AWS in the space, they just don't have a real choice. Windows simply isn't enjoying the dominance it once had in the server space. What I am trying to say is that this incident isn't evidence of anything except that Microsoft is like every other company that will use any advantage it has to push its product. Google and Apple do it too. Let's put our energy in things that pressure companies to behave properly like lobbying governments to step up their anti-trust and privacy enforcement.
I agree with you. This comment should be higher up as it's more objective to this whole situation than a lot of the top comments that quickly resort to Microsoft bashing and "remembering the old Microsoft is the same Microsoft" type of comments.
Does anyone who uses Firefox realize for a long while they were primarily funded by having Google pay them to be the default search engine?